ITAT Judgment contain Income Tax related Judgments from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Across India which includes ITAT Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkutta, Hyderabad etc.
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of ...
Income Tax : The issue concerns massive backlog in ITAT caused by unfilled positions and delayed appointments. The intervention highlights that...
Income Tax : A representation seeks doubling the SMC threshold due to inflation and higher dispute values. The key takeaway is that increasing ...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that a gift deed alone cannot establish legitimacy under Section 68. It directed fresh scrutiny of the donor’s...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue must establish a direct connection between seized material and the assessee’s taxable income...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that validity of reopening under Section 148 must be tested on the basis of material available when reassessment...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without ...
Income Tax : Hyderabad ITAT held that a notice issued under Section 148 after six years from the end of AY 2015-16 was invalid. The Tribunal ru...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer is invalid even if legal heirs participated in proc...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi has revised its hearing notice protocols. Physical notices will now be sent only once, with subsequent dates availa...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Income Tax : Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice-President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as President of th...
Income Tax : Ministry of Finance notified rules for appointment of members in various tribunals on 12.02.2020 in which practice of judicial and...
Income Tax : Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Ac...
The facts in brief leading to the controversy are that unaccounted commission earned by the assessee was unearthed during the search. In his return of income, the assessee claimed expenditure incurred to earn the said income which the Assessing Officer disallowed under sec.69C of the Act. The CIT (A) deleted this disallowance by observing that sec.69C along with the pro
Supreme Court in the case of Shahjada Nand & Sons Vs CIT [1997] 108 ITR 358 in which the apex court held that commission paid to the employees is allowable and there is no need for any contractual obligation or extra services performed by the assesses We therefore are of the opinion that the commission payment of Rs. 30 lacs
The deduction under section 10A is not an exemption but only a deduction under Chapter III of the Income-tax Act and the provisions of section 80AB of Chapter VIA would not be applicable to such deduction under section 10A, and also deduction under section 10A is undertaking specific.
Even on a close reading of the Circular makes it very clear that the term “advertising” has not been defined in the Act. During the course of the consideration of the Finance Bill, 1995, the Finance Minister clarified on the floor of the House that the amended provisions of tax deduction at source would apply when a client makes payment to an advertising agency
VSAT Charges- Members of the stock exchanges trade (purchase and sell) on behalf of their clients. As a part of infrastructure provided to the members a trading system, known as on screen trading is provided by stock exchanges. Such trading facilities are established by Stock exchanges to enable trading anywhere in the territory of India.
Section 158BC(b) provides that where any search has been conducted u/s.132 or books of account, other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any person, then the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 1
It has also been argued that while computing the perquisite value the salary from only one employer should be considered. We are however unable to accept the argument. The computation of perquisite value as per the rule is based on the annual salary and not on the basis of salary from one employer
It is a settled principle that the power of levying penalty or not is discretionary and not mandatory. The law requires that whenever the AO is to exercise his discretion then it is the AO alone who is to exercise that discretion and the appellate authority cannot exercise that discretion on the part of the AO.
In our opinion, the Section 269SS and 271D are not applicable to the fact of the case since the assessee in this case received back the money in cash and not advanced money or accepted the loan in cash. The penalty In this case cannot be levied u/s 271D of the Act. for receiving the cash from the borrower, by the assessee.
Provisions of s. 124(3) are self- explanatory. No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Undisputedly, assessee did not raise this issue either after the expiry of one month from the date
